Now that we have some more info from Counsel Siddall, we can draft a better article, even put out a special one. We need to be more definitive. We’ve already told members in the initial web article and the ARRL Letter that we would oppose it. Excuse any typos, on road. Rick Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 17, 2020, at 11:25 AM, Shelley, Barry, N1VXY (CEO) <bshelley@arrl.org> wrote:
All:
As we are under a deadline for the issuance of the ARRL Letter this afternoon (1 pm EDT), and owing to the fact that the Board hasn’t taken any official action on which we can report, I will have the staff pull the story from the ARRL Letter. I agree that we need to project a strong response for the membership but we also need actionable consensus from the Board. We can post a separate story on our intentions with guidance for the membership if we choose, but for the immediate future (today), I need to make a decision and pulling the story is the best solution. I think the best option is to take a step back and post a more robust story on our intended actions once the Board decides on what those are. Mr. Siddall’s input will be important to that effort.
--Barry
From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> On Behalf Of John Robert Stratton Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 12:17 PM To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:30967] Re: Fwd: Proposed Application Fees for Radio Amateurs
While the effort to craft what appears to be a word salad emulation of a fire extinguisher is appreciated, with respect to the crafters — the proposed news item is weak and frankly, written without a clue as to how to how to put out the fire it seeks to suppress.
This can be improved and I suggest we make that effort.
______________________________________
John Robert Stratton
N5AUS
Director West Gulf Division
Office: 512-445-6262 Cell: 512-426-2028 P.O. Box 2232 Austin, Texas 78768-2232
______________________________________ On 9/17/20 10:43 AM, Shelley, Barry, N1VXY (CEO) wrote: All:
The attached story is scheduled to be in the ARRL Letter which will be distributed later today. It was waiting for EC review and approval.
I agree with Director Baker that the Board (or EC) has not taken a specific position but, as he proposed, once they do, we can prepare a follow-up story that outlines the response which we’ve assured the members is forthcoming.
73, Barry, N1VXY
From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> On Behalf Of Mickey Baker Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 11:38 AM To: david davidsiddall-law.com <david@davidsiddall-law.com> Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:30964] Re: Fwd: Proposed Application Fees for Radio Amateurs
EC or not, I think we have a majority of directors as well as our president asking for communication to members that ARRL will oppose this measure.
We've seen that Special Meetings can be easily done and perhaps can replace EC meetings on matters of urgency.
What is the Board's opinion on a special meeting for a special meeting to consider the following:
1, Staff be directed to prepare a statement within one week explaining what Mr. Siddall expressed, that the Board of Directors will file a considered opposition to all these fees in a timely manner; that the response deadline has not yet been set; 2. That the Legislative committee be asked to investigate and propose an amendment to the RAYBAUMS act to specifically exclude amateur radio from administrative fees.
I've been copied on letters to Senators and Congressional representatives opposing this fee. This is becoming a hot issue in members' minds and our apparent silence is disturbing to me.
Mickey Baker, N4MB Palm Beach Gardens, FL “The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead." Robert K. Greenleaf
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 11:19 AM david davidsiddall-law.com <david@davidsiddall-law.com> wrote: I understand your comments, and have read quite a few from members and nonmembers as well.
With regard to formal FCC comments, like most major parties, we submit comments within a couple of days when they are due. This item has not yet been officially published. Consequently the deadline for comments has not yet been set,. It is at least 5 weeks into the future, perhaps longer.
This appears to not be entirely satisfactory in this instance, so here are my suggestions.
I hear a need for talking points and guidance on direction in opposing this. This is already in draft form and I will finish it and circulate.
Since formal comments are several months away as a practical matter, I can recommend two actions to demonstrate opposition to the fees and ARRL movement.
If the EC is amenable, an obvious one immediately available would be to announce that the EC has resolved to vigorously oppose the fees and outline leading arguments in a news item.
Second would be to seek a meeting with the FCC staff and have a news item on that event. This fees proposal is from the finance part of the FCC, encompasses the entire agency, and those in the Wireless Bureau that govern amateur radio are not directly involved (although they could be consulted by the lead staff). The purpose of the meeting (virtual, of course) would be to brief the responsible staff on ARRL’s opposition and for us to gauge which arguments might have more traction than others. It is mandatory to make a filing after the meeting describing the discussion, and this would be the opportunity for a news article describing the points and demonstrate action.
The third item would be the actual comments being filed, which looks like an end of October – early November timeframe. The reason we do not file formal comments early is that doing so allows the comments to account for issues and intelligence gathered beforehand; and eliminates opponents having multiple opportunities to state their arguments in opposition. (Although in this case I would expect that to be minimal, and for each service to limit their comments to their own service. But this isn’t always the case.)
Of course, other suggestions are always welcome.
73, Dave K3ZJ
David R. Siddall Managing Partner DS Law, PLLC 1629 K St. NW, Ste 300 Washington, DC 20006 direct: +1 202 559 4690
<image002.jpg> Unauthorized Disclosure Prohibited. This e-mail is intended solely for the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is proprietary, confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, it is prohibited to disclose, copy, distribute, or use the contents of this email and its attachments. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all electronic and physical copies of the e-mail message and its attachments. Unintended transmission shall not constitute waiver of attorney-client or any other privilege. Thank you.
From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> on behalf of "david@davidsiddall-law.com" <david@davidsiddall-law.com> Date: Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 3:52 PM To: ODV <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:30824] Proposed Amateur Radio Application Fees
All,
Yesterday the FCC did release a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in which it proposes to overhaul its application fee structure. Since so many services use the same ULS system, the effect on amateurs if adopted as proposed would be to charge amateurs the same amounts as those in other radio services for similar actions. Specifically, for the amateur service, the FCC proposes a $50. fee for (1) new or renewal applications; (2) vanity call applications; (3) license upgrade applications. Administrative changes to a license – such as change of address – would continue to be free.
There will be the standard opportunity to comment and lobby the Commission, as in most proceedings. Deadlines for doing so have not yet been established.
Obviously we will be discussing this, including the Executive Committee when it comes time to comment. The FCC proposal in its entirety can be viewed here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-116A1.pdf. Paragraphs 24-30 address applications in the amateur service (with GMRS and other similar licenses).
73,
Dave
David R. Siddall Managing Partner DS Law, PLLC 1629 K St. NW, Ste 300 Washington, DC 20006 direct: +1 202 559 4690
<image002.jpg> Unauthorized Disclosure Prohibited. This e-mail is intended solely for the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is proprietary, confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, it is prohibited to disclose, copy, distribute, or use the contents of this email and its attachments. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all electronic and physical copies of the e-mail message and its attachments. Unintended transmission shall not constitute waiver of attorney-client or any other privilege. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv